Ranged Attacks, cover, miss, etc etc

[Kerilstrasz]

Assume a ranged attack (arrow, thrown or spell)
The target gains cover (not full cover) because an ally is in the way.
1.a.) Is there a chance to hit my ally?
1.b.) What circumstances will make the attack hit my ally?
(i could rule that on a N1 roll, the attacker rolls again against ally's ac)

Also..
in 3,5e there was that rule about shooting into melee and get a -4
2.a.) Is a similar rule in 5e that i failed to discover?
2.b.) If the above is false, shooting into melee is now safe???

Thank you for your time :smallwink:

[Grynning]

There are no penalties for shooting into melee in 5E. Other creatures do not provide cover, as far as I know. The only thing that is still there is that you have disadvantage when firing a ranged weapon with an enemy within 5 feet of you (no attack of opportunity though).

[Kerilstrasz]

Other creatures do not provide cover, as far as I know.

From Phb (Pg:196 ,Cover)
[...]Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...]

So.. an ally (creature) can provide cover for an enemy from my ranged attacks..
so.. we return back at OP, questions 1a & 1b

[Yuki Akuma]

There's no chance of hitting your allies if they're providing cover to an enemy. If you miss, you miss completely.

[pwykersotz]

There's no chance of hitting your allies if they're providing cover to an enemy. If you miss, you miss completely.

True by RAW from my reading. However, my players would revolt if a bad guy was cowering behind another bad guy, they shot an arrow with enough attack roll to hit either AC, they missed concealment, and somehow the entire attack was invalidated.

[fishyfishyfishy]

True by RAW from my reading. However, my players would revolt if a bad guy was cowering behind another bad guy, they shot an arrow with enough attack roll to hit either AC, they missed concealment, and somehow the entire attack was invalidated.

Then they should aim at the guy who is not cowering behind someone else. Or perhaps move to a better angle for a clean shot. Aiming at the guy hiding implies that you are trying to hit him, and not the one in front, so a miss would miss the both of them. Makes perfect sense to me.

[pwykersotz]

Then they should aim at the guy who is not cowering behind someone else. Or perhaps move to a better angle for a clean shot. Aiming at the guy hiding implies that you are trying to hit him, and not the one in front, so a miss would miss the both of them. Makes perfect sense to me.

You might think so. My players would disagree. Their argument would be that since they managed an attack roll that was capable of a hit, on the miss chance roll the shot would instead hit the cover. If that cover is a fleshy being and the attack roll passed it's AC, it got hit in the leg or something. I've had this discussion before. :smalltongue:

[fishyfishyfishy]

A miss could mean you over shot in that circumstance. So instead of striking cover it went past the cover AND the intended target. Or maybe it reflected off their shield or armor. There are plenty of explanations.

When players start arguing things like this I just point to the rule and say "this is how it works, and we're not changing it for the sake of consistency and balance. If you want to make a case for a house rule we can discuss it after the game session."

[Theodoxus]

You also need to remember, this is the most basic of rules. If there are rules from earlier additions you prefer because reasons, then incorporate them. You want miss chance to include hitting soft cover? add it! It hurts nothing to do so. Just make sure that it's addressed before it comes up in game, else your players might think you're trying to game the system against them.

[Pink]

True by RAW from my reading. However, my players would revolt if a bad guy was cowering behind another bad guy, they shot an arrow with enough attack roll to hit either AC, they missed concealment, and somehow the entire attack was invalidated.

Just want to say, unless I missed something, there is no 'miss chance' anymore. Cover is purely a flat increase in AC.

Also, by trying to target the enemy in cover, they are specifically aiming where the front opponent will not be, to shoot past him. If they didn't care, they should aim for the front opponent.

[rlc]

Then they should aim at the guy who is not cowering behind someone else. Or perhaps move to a better angle for a clean shot. Aiming at the guy hiding implies that you are trying to hit him, and not the one in front, so a miss would miss the both of them. Makes perfect sense to me.
exactly. if you're aiming at the guy behind, then you're not shooting straight at the guy in front.
also, doesn't cover add ac, meaning that if they missed then they didn't clear the adjusted ac?
if players argue against this, then they are either wrong or they don't understand geometry...which still means they're wrong.
no balance or consistency issues here.

except for, you know, this:
You also need to remember, this is the most basic of rules. If there are rules from earlier additions you prefer because reasons, then incorporate them. You want miss chance to include hitting soft cover? add it! It hurts nothing to do so. Just make sure that it's addressed before it comes up in game, else your players might think you're trying to game the system against them.
if you house rule it differently, then it's different.